1st attempt: It was around december, when I came across the primal carb curve: I really liked the idea of having accelerated fat loss through this little hack. So I ate around 2-3 servings of broccoli a day, the rest were things like grass fed beef, butter, coconut oil, ghee and eggs. I got constipated right on the first day. I wasn't hyper concerned, I thought my body was just utilizing everything as energy or just not being used to so much "optimal" fuel. I kept things the same till about 2 more days, than I clearly saw that things just won't move. So on the fourth day, I went to the grociery store and bought blueberries and some melons, which got things immediately.

2nd attempt: A month or two passed, and went on a normal diet. Than came the point when I saw Mark's speech at the 21convention. And where he said that we could go entirely without carbs because our body makes 150 grams of glucose. That made me do some further research, and even e-mailed some health gurus and got on low-carb related forums. I got the advice that I should up my fat intake relative to protein, and that it might have caused the problem. So I went to a diet a lot higher in fat relative to protein, so I made it to be a real high fat low carb diet.
But it was not just Mark who made me doing it. The whole thing just made sense: we are primarily designed to consume fatty animals, look at the Eskimos, for christ sake. Most Paleo friendly health experts agree that the role of fiber is overrated. Long story short, I got constipated very soon again, quitted after a few days again.

The 3d attempt came after about 1 month.
Why did I try it again? I made a big research on the possible causes of constipation. Reading the sites of people like Mark Sisson, Chris Kresser, Paul Jaminet, Mercola, I found many reasons can contribute to this, like unhealthy gut flora, infections in the gut, lack of minerals, low glutathione levels.
So I made a third, final try, and actually supplemented with L-Glutamine, upped my vitmain C and magnesium, bought MCT oil as it can get things go, they said. Even learned that too little salt intake can be troublesome as salt increases water retention in the body.
This point I wasn't even that low carb, I ate up to 30 grams of protein, so I ate carrots, strawberries and things like that sometimes.
I got terribly constipated again. Now it was a bit better that I supplemented with these stuff, so some days I would have a stool while other days I wouldn't. That is why I waited a bit longer this time, maybe around 10 days. After that I went up to about 50 grams, but because I kind of tried to go for certain, kept pretty low carb. And that's when things got extreme. I went back eating normal, no masses of carbs but more veggies and stuff. Now my complete body mechanism changed...I had trouble gaining muscle and losing fat, and my constipation transformed to fecal impaction. I almost inexplicably gained 10 kilos, (22 pounds) which than took me ages to get rid of.

In the meanwhile my condition got serious because of the lack of stool, which I won't go into now, because I just wanted to let those who are curious know how I fallen to this trap.

Was I a bit stupid to try it the third time? Yes. I'm the kind of person who likes to jump onto conclusions, and likes experimentation. The whole don't need carb thing seemed so logical from an evolutionary perspective, there are numerous studies showing how people kept on ultra low carb diets gained great biological markers, and I really couldn't imagine that something that there was a problem of the statements of Mark.

And so once again: Did Mark suggest that we eat zero carbs? (actually, I wasn't eating zero carbs, min 20. grams a day) No. Did he say that we don't have to consume if we don't want? Yes.
Is it true? Sure, for some people it is, for some people it's terribly dangerous. But his statement was not "Some people could go without carbs." He stated it from a general perspective, multiple times.

Am I hating here? No. I'm still a massive fan of this site, and reading it regularly. I do think that Mark did an excellent job with his book, and his contribution to the whole paleo movement. He helped me and my family enormously and I have a massive gratitude and respect for him.
Do I think however that with these low carb claims he was irresponsible? Yes I do.

And yeah, we could argue all night long about whether he actually recommended to be ultra low carb. I think when publishing a carb curve in which there is a 0-50 segment for "accelerated fat loss" with no side note of "but be careful of the possible dangers of getting to low carb." it pretty much gives you the free path to go for it. Also, for me hearing that I don't need carbs means something pretty similar to "It's safe to go ultra low carb".

That's pretty much it.

And honestly, I'm tired of hating, calling somebody names, being cynical, and questioning somebody's identity instead of discussing things.
You can call me drama queen and whatever you want, but I came here to help others with my story and to express my own personal opinion about this particular claim of Mark.

I don't think that any of the above listed reasons are something to attack for.
That would be it.

0-50 grams/day – Ketosis and Accelerated Fat Burning

Acceptable for a day or two of Intermittent Fasting towards aggressive weight loss efforts, provided adequate protein, fat and supplements are consumed otherwise. May be ideal for many diabetics. Not necessarily recommended as a long-term practice for otherwise healthy people due to resultant deprivation of high nutrient value vegetables and fruits.

I will say though, for as many people who post here freaking out about "keeping below X carbs", I'd say people misinterpret the carb curve regularly. It seems like people are under the impression that for primal to work, they need to eat below 50 grams of carbs.

This is not the first poster for VLC to not work and to interpret "primal" as "very low carb".

It's a confusing concept- the average American eats a way too many carbs at the expense of fat and protein. MDA kind of balances that back out. Then too many people interpret it the other way- that we don't need carbs. Most people need ALL 3 macros in a decent balance.

I also think the whole low carb flu confuses people because there is this idea that when you go low carb, you feel like shit for a few weeks (carb flu) but then you magically all the sudden feel great. So how long do you wait?

I am convinced that there are a lot of people who start reading about something having to do with nutrition or diet and stop when they reach an interesting concept, even if they are only a tiny fraction of the way through the complete system. And although they have read hardly any of the book, or website, or literature (or maybe none of it, only having read something someone else wrote about the system), they honestly believe they understand it completely and proceed on their own synthesized system that they think is what is being offered.

You see this a lot with Atkins. Lots of people who have never even read the book or visited the website think they're doing the Atkins diet, based on misinformation they read somewhere, written by a health and nutrition writer who also hadn't read the book. Or perhaps what they read was pro-CW propaganda.

But we get a lot of these "Primal broke my metabolism, you people are trying to kill me!" threads here, written by previously healthy guys who apparently have fed into their tendency to dietary extremism and control, as well as lack of willingness to accept any responsibility for having taken a concept that is extreme according to conventional standards and warped it several more orders of magnitude.

I find this very curious, since males are still much less likely to develop eating disorders than females, and I don't recall seeing a woman complain about this. And considering that there are a fair number of well-known people within the community who are eating VLC, apparently successfully, you'd think if it was a frequent occurrence some of them would come forward looking for help.

But they don't. And the ones who post the threads come out of nowhere to do so. Curious.

I will say though, for as many people who post here freaking out about "keeping below X carbs", I'd say people misinterpret the carb curve regularly. It seems like people are under the impression that for primal to work, they need to eat below 50 grams of carbs.

This is not the first poster for VLC to not work and to interpret "primal" as "very low carb".

It's a confusing concept- the average American eats a way too many carbs at the expense of fat and protein. MDA kind of balances that back out. Then too many people interpret it the other way- that we don't need carbs. Most people need ALL 3 macros in a decent balance.

I also think the whole low carb flu confuses people because there is this idea that when you go low carb, you feel like shit for a few weeks (carb flu) but then you magically all the sudden feel great. So how long do you wait?

This. People keep calling TPB a low carb diet, when its a lc only if you make it that way. It's supposed to be a healthy carb lifestyle.

The trouble with low carb, it's easy to identify a 'carb'. It's easy to eliminate them. The obvious low-hanging fruit for elimination is bread, pasta, potatoes, and rice. The first two should probably be eliminated by everyone, the last two by no one.

This exactly. VLC people usually vilify all carbs. Something is not right when for example fruit and pasta are seen as equally bad for you. No one ever got fat or sick from eating too many oranges and grapes.